I am a designer and developer and content strategist. I use my experience as a magazine art director and web editor to help publishers, marketers, non-profits and self-branded individuals tell their stories in words and images. I follow all of the technologies that relate to the content business and try to identify the opportunities and pitfalls that these technologies pose. At the same time I am immersed in certain sectors through my content practice and am always looking to find connections between the worlds of neurology, economics, entertainment, travel and mobile technology. I live near the appropriately-scaled metropolis of Portland, Maine, and participate in its innovation economy (more stories at liveworkportland.org. A more complete bio and samples of my design work live at wingandko.com.

iOS 6 Map Flap: Should Apple Let Users Select Alternate Default Apps?

Yesterday, Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted that the company had taken a wrong turn by releasing its new Maps app before it was ready for prime time. “We strive to make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers,” Cook wrote in an open letter. “With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment.”

Cook went on to recommend some alternatives to the built-in app, “While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.”

As unprecedented as it is for Apple to recommend alternatives to its built-in apps, the company could have gone one better. If Apple is really serious about “make[ing] world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers,” they should add a field to the Maps preferences settings that would allow users to select an alternate default mapping app.

Of course, this is the last thing that Apple wants to do, because once users begin to question the primacy of the built-in apps, the spell is broken on the invincibility of the iOS platform. Like marks on the surface of a beautiful painting, once you are aware of the imperfections, it is hard to re-enter the illusion of the image.

But since this is about the user’s experience (supposedly) not the company’s market share, it’s worth considering that on iOS, not all apps are created equal. The default apps have a “home-field advantage” that goes beyond an icon on the home screen. As Cook helpfully pointed out, you can put a different map app (or in the case of Google or Nokia, a shortcut to their web apps) on your home screen.

But, what happens when you get an email with an address in the body of the text? Or find an address in Safari? Or look up a contact in your Address Book? Through the wonder of micro-formats, iOS recognizes these (for the most part) as addresses and creates a hyperlink to the location—in the built-in Maps app! So, you can put as many alternative choices as you want on your home screen, but you will still find yourself in the default Maps app as a normal part of your iOS experience.

Providing users with the ability to specify alternatives to the default built-in apps would go a considerable way towards making iOS a more open platform. If Apple ever got in trouble about monopolistic practices, that’s the kind of fix that regulators might suggest. Apple would probably argue that one of the things that makes its mobile platform superior to Android is the uniformity and consistency of its built-in apps. But if the company fails to live up to those standards—as Cook has admitted they have in this case—what then?

The truth is that Apple could have it both ways—if it’s willing to give up a little control (I know, this is a big “if”!) Just as Apple has an approval process for inclusion in the App Store, they could have a more stringent approval process for “approved alternative default apps” for its core offerings. The short-term risk to the company would actually be quite low, because research shows that users in all kinds of situations overwhelmingly choose default options. The early adopter types that would be likely to specify their own defaults are also the kind most a risk for leaving the platform in search of more control of their experience, anyway.

This is an idea that, frankly, didn’t occur to me before this whole map flap, but I think it could make a lot of sense, not only for users, but for Apple, too. Giving users control of their defaults would both show them respect and create a more “convivial” app ecosystem between Apple and its developers. Apple would be in a position of having to continually maintain its position of having the best app for a given function, and ambitious developers would have an incentive to rethink core aspects of the iOS user experience. And if someone (other than Google) comes up with a better core app, Apple could always, you know, buy it.

So, although I think Tim Cook’s recommendation of Bing, MapQuest, Waze, Google or Nokia as temporary work-arounds is admirable, I don’t think it really goes far enough to really solve users’ problems with the built-in app. This could, in fact, be an opportunity for the company to adopt a more open approach to its app ecosystem (similar to what Adobe is attempting with their new HLML 5 tools) that will continue to engage both power-users and the masses. How about it, Tim?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Well, that certainly is one solution. Apple is making Google/Samsung’s offerings more attractive through their misstep. That’s why giving users a choice of default apps could be good for Apple too. It’s protection for the platform against the deficiency of any one component. I think that’s called “robustness.”

I will agree with you and add one more: the same should be said for the browser. If you have a closed device, users are locked in, but that’s understandable. But if you have an open system, where you allow people to charge money for apps, but restrict their use, that is very very different: it is anti-competitive. Apple can’t take peoples money but lock you into THEIR maps app and THEIR browser, and …..

Apple can’t have an app store but restrict the apps use. Do you remember when Microsoft said that IE was built too deeply into windows and they couldn’t allow other browsers in? That didn’t fly then, and this behavior by Apple shouldn’t fly now.

Scott, thanks for adding that. Once I started thinking about the idea, I realized it was not just about Maps, but about ALL of the built-in apps, including the browser. As I say in the story, most users will go with Apple’s default’s anyway, but giving a choice would make a huge difference in the platform and actually make it stronger going forward. To really make the best use of these systems we have set up, they have to be open and interoperable. The current debacle with Maps shows that it may be harder for Apple to keep up with software than hardware. And it’s the hardware that it is making the big money on anyway, so anything that protects that should be a priority for it. So should taking care of its users, of course.

Cook is not giving up a damned thing. He already knows that the current Maps app is more than enough for most people. It’s been wonderful for me so far. I like it so much more than what they had before. They need to move all Google businesses off of their platform. Google fucked them. It’s a fact. In 2007, Apple wanted to partner with others to advance technology. I believe they need this approach, but they need partners who aren’t Google or Samsung… The ideal Apple brings us something a little different… Cook gets it… and his approach will provide what we need to move forward into the next decade…